Motorcycle Chassis Design Digest #701-710

MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, July 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 701
1. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
2. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
3. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis RE: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
4. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
5. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
6. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Factual corrections
7. jmark.vanscoter@amd.com Subj: RE: MC-Chassis RE: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
8. Dick Brewster Subj: Re: MC-Chassis new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
9. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis RE: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
10. Mitch Casto Subj: MC-Chassis Harley bashing/ Political Correctness zealotry
11. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Boring Bars
12. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:47:21 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Mark Mason wrote:
>
This is because Ford has to engineer to the lowest common
> denominator...
Your wrong. What is developed has to meet regulations, performa as
expected, and appeal to a wide market enough so that they will buy it.
Most manufacturers don't have the luxury of focusing on a small,
hard-core market.
The Ducati 916 didn't become Bike of the Year by engineering to
> the lowest common denominator, they did it by building an incredibly
> good bike with a fraction of Honda's R&D budget and pricing it so that
> people could actually afford it.
An incredibly appealing bike that has iffy materials and quality
control, a poor reputation for reliability, and wouldn't have won a
single race without the 33% displacement advantage. Honda is focused on
a different target than Ducati. As are most manufaturers
>
> There are people on this list who make their living doing just that -
> Tony Foale and Ian Drysdale come to mind as two people who take
> ideas that companies with research budgets the size of Ford won't
> produce and turn them into reality.
I think that many of the things that Tony, Ian and some others have done
and are doing are really great. To say an OEM 'cannot' do it is to
delude yourself. Typically, they chose not to indulge in the luxury of
catering to a limited market. They deal in volume.
The Japanese have Ducati in their collective sights. They will always do
things differently, but I will bet that you don't see a lot of Ducati
riders on the podium for a while as the Japanese twins come into the
game.
>
>
> Money does not equal innovation. Did Ford take part in the
> multi-billion dollar bailout of the US auto industry? Seems to be it
> was because the companies in question couldn't make a car that people
> would buy no matter how much money they spent.
Look at Wall street if you really want an answer to that. Or any of the
automaker's annual reports.
I don't mean that to be
> quite as rude as it sounds, but it is true, it's still possible for
> some guy working in a small shop to do something that none of the
> giants could do.
I don't think that was ever in question.
I'm not up on much of anything that's happened in the
> motorcycle industry in the last 20 years, but one example comes to
> mind was Dick Mann kicking Honda's ass at Daytona. Didn't some guy by
> the name of Rob North build frames without even the benefit of a frame
> jig that were better than what the big factories could or would make?
>
I'm sorry, but I always get a kick out of it when someone points to
something that happened 20 or 30 years ago to prove a point he's
espousing today.
>
> > If you'll look back at what I've had to say, I've never said
> > 'This won't work' or 'That is bad'. What I have done is try to point out
> > some directions that hold promise and others that more likely do not,
> > and offer up some ideas for consideration. One needs to avoid getting
> > tunnel vision, but, overall, I consider acquired knowledge a good thing.
>
> Very few directions do not hold promise, but most of them do not hold
> promise for YOU right NOW. If you went to Kawasaki back in 1970 with
> the specs for the 1995 Ninja ZX6 and asked them to build the bike and
> make it affordable they wouldn't have even talked to you. If you went
> to them with the same idea today they wouldn't talk to you again, but
> for a different reason - it's crap by todays standards. Acquired
> knowledge is a good thing, but not if it prevents you from doing
> something just because someone proved didn't work a few years ago. If
> we avoided all the paths that people had already proven to not hold
> promise then we'd still have the british bike industry making rehashes
> of the pushrod parallel twins that they designed after WWII.
You've missed the point
M
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 08:50:41 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Kevin Burns wrote:
>
> > Marty
>
> Aha! The crux of the arguement. Unconventional ideas expressed in a design
> forum for unconventional applications and assumed to be intended for the
> conventional product. No wonder you guys are running this in so deep.
>
At least I try to define what I'm talking about instead of moving the
target whenever I choose.
M
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:01:54 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis RE: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
Griffiths, Duncan wrote:
>
> Well, everybody can ride what they want, and we shouldn't be any more
> bigoted than those who make fun of the rice-burners or crotch rockets or
> the Gold Wings or whatever. But the fact that Harley's first new motor
> in however many years is about as technically advanced as the BSA Gold
> Star does invite some jabs.
> Duncan
In fairness to H-D and in line with some of the things I said in some
other recent posts, Harley has a different market to deal with than do
most of the other bike manufacturers, large and small. To keep that
market, whatever they develop HAS to remain 'Harley-like' and have
direct ties to previous products/images/perceptions. That I happen to
find their offerings rather uninteresting (the XR750 excepted) means I'm
not in their market.
I'd like to offer the opinion that the Harley bashing that I have been a
part of on this list is typically light-hearted and in the same veins as
Duncan alludes to above. I, for one, enjoy a good shot at me and/or my
own bike preferences and don't feel threatened. If I'm off the mark,
I'll shut up. But I have to admit that I find obsessive PC a pain...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:02:32 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Griffiths, Duncan wrote:
>
> Instead of the countershaft, how about adding the disk to the periphery
> of the dry clutch on my TZ? You would have a large diameter (approx 5")
> to get a large mass to absorb the heat, the caliper could be mounted on a
> simple bracket attached to the case through the existing side-cover
> holes, and there is plenty of cooling air available from the duct that
> cools the clutch. Those with wet clutches probably don't have the space
> inside the cases, even if you could get the right materials to run as a
> wet brake.
>
> The "bacon-slicer" doesn't concern me any more than the exposed clutch,
> counter-balancer, and magneto.
>
> The desirability of making this modification falls much lower on the list
> than the mag wheels, which would have an equivalent or greater effect, as
> well as the benefits to acceleration and steering.
>
> Even if the concept were completely without merit, it's good for most of
> us to work through all of the pros and cons.
>
> Duncan
I heartily concur...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:06:12 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Edward Madrid wrote:
>
> Marty-
> You want to get rid of that dirttracker? What is it anyway?
> Eddie-
>
It's a YZ 360 in a Redline frame. Morris wheel in front, Kosman in back.
Less than 200 #. It's also old...
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:07:41 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Factual corrections
Dick Brewster wrote:
>
> Tony ...
>
> Your book arrived a couple of hours ago, a quick scan of it tells
> me I have a lot of interesting reading ahead of me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dick
Mine just arrived, too. Excellent... and thanks for going to the
trouble of having it reprinted.
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:16:05 -0500
From: jmark.vanscoter@amd.com
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis RE: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
Duncan wrote:
>
> But the fact that Harley's first new motor in however many
> years is about as technically advanced as the BSA Gold Star
> does invite some jabs.
> Duncan
I believe that a cursory evaluation will show that although the basic
technology may seem to be on a par with the BSA DBD34 Gold Star, in
reality it is a least 10-15 years beyond that! (Of course, I am not sure
that is a big complement.)
If you compare that heads, the Gold Star retained (I believe) the
conventional hemi-head 90 degree included valve angle. The HD "Big Twin"
valve angle is about 58 degrees. Also, there is much more technology in
the ports and the fin-to-liner construction. All-in-all, it is a very
impressive improvement on the antique they have been selling. Read the
CW article, there are many subtle and significant improvements. Like I
said in a previous post, they brought their engine technology forward
40-50 years with this new model. (It is now mid-70's pushrod
technology!).
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:20:33 -0700
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
Thomas wrote:
<<
> have to be alike or for the same purposes. Also, there's a new Harley
> motor on the front cover of the latest Cycle World that has a twin cam
> engine too.
> mitch
Maybe I'm stuck in the automobile frame of reference, but isn't
"twin cam"
a misnomer when applied to the new Harley engine? It's only one
cam per
bank, to me that's a single cam. Before, it was like a 1/2 cam.
Thomas >>
You are correct, but since Harley put both cams in the crankcase,
the crankcase is "twin cam" (:-)
According to Cycle World (Aug 98, P35), the new engine has two
cams for noise reduction and styling reasons. According to CW,
Harley wanted to use chain drive for a single cam but that caused
the cam to be moved far enough above the crank that the angle of
the pushrod tubes was asthetically unpleasing so Willie G. Davis
said to find another solution.
Dick
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:00:04 -0600
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis RE: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
Agreed!!
Jim
Swiss
But I have to admit that I find obsessive PC a pain...
>
> Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:28:19 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: MC-Chassis Harley bashing/ Political Correctness zealotry
Mitch Casto wrote:
> Harley bashers,
>
> O.K. give'm hell! people have doing this for decades and it only seems to
> cement the loyalty of the harley camp. You might want to know that I once
> considered Harleys a national embarrassment and compared them to Russian
> Farm Tractor Technology. Knowing this, my brother once greeted me by saying
> that he had just been to a store that had dozens of like-new1920's
> motorcycles for sale! I fell for it and asked where and he looked at me and
> grinned and said, "The Harley-Davidson Store." Recently, I commented to one
> of my friends about the attempts of the harley riders trying to give
> themselves that tough dangerous outlaw antisocial hell's angel look and said
> that its like dressing up for halloween. He said that if we see a bunch of
> harley bikers at a gas station, maybe we should buy candy and give it to
> them.
>
> But seriously, if people want to ride Harleys and not bother anyone else, I
> hope they have fun. Besides, these guys seem able to get more good looking
> women to ride with them than any of the 'rice burner' crowd.
>
> mitch
>
> > Is that more Harley-bashing, or are you being "factual". (PC Police at
> > your service.)
> > In one feel swoop, Harley "Big-Twin" technology progresses
> > 40-50 years. Now they are only 10-20 years behind the technology of
> > today! (That is not Harley bashing, that is a statement of opinion.)
> >
> > Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:33:31 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Boring Bars
Dave Williams wrote:
>
> ... Is carving bike cranks ...
>
> What's the rod journal diameter on a Norton?
>
Rod Journal = 1.75" Main Journal = 1.18"
Marty
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:35:35 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
>
> At 10:06 AM 7/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Who's Bill Denton and what's he doing?
>
> He's owner of yam650@micapeak.com. He's shifting the 360 crank to a 270/90
> crank, ... ... It sounds like the sort of project a guy could get
> interested in, yes?
>
> Hoyt
Very...
I'm building a 180 deg Norton (God knows why...), but have an XS motor
sitting on the bench teasing me. I'll have to talk to the guy. Thanks!
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #701
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Friday, July 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 702
1. kburns@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Kevin Burns) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
2. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hossack type front end
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
4. geoff@icarus.ihug.co.nz (Geoff Merryweather. ) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Who needs lots of money?
5. "Terry Hayden" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: bean counters
6. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Gearbox brake
7. Edward Madrid Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
8. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
9. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
10. Edward Madrid Subj: RE: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
11. "Griffiths, Duncan" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
12. "Thomas Alberti" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Harley bashing
13. "Thomas Alberti" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
14. Ed Scharnhorst Subj: MC-Chassis Swallower Guzzi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:43:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: kburns@pop.service.ohio-state.edu (Kevin Burns)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
>Kevin Burns wrote:
>>
>
>> > Marty
>>
>> Aha! The crux of the arguement. Unconventional ideas expressed in a design
>> forum for unconventional applications and assumed to be intended for the
>> conventional product. No wonder you guys are running this in so deep.
>>
>
>At least I try to define what I'm talking about instead of moving the
>target whenever I choose.
>
>M
Marty,
I totally agree and sympathize somewhat in the midst of this discussion. I
teach high school students about design and problem solving. The first,
and probably hardest point to get across is that everyone needs to be on
the same page for the discussion to begin. Sometimes it just takes a bit
longer to decipher that first page and reach an agreement in principle when
the goals appear to be divergent.
Boy, I like this list.
KB, with school signature line
______________________________________________________________________
Kevin J Burns
School Home
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:52:03
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hossack type front end
At 03:09 PM 7/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Has anyone build a machine with such a front end? Any comments?
You can see photos on a couple of mine on Michael's Euro-Spares site.
I built them for dirt, have had good results, and have discussed it here
before. I'm sending you the basics of all separately. If you have questions
on other aspects of the topic, ask them here. You'll find others present
can add a lot to what I know.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 13:52:23
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
At 02:58 PM 7/23/98 -0500, you wrote:
>separate cams for each cylinder, or does he have to have custom cams
>made?
Sign up to the list and he'll tell all. He was investigating custom cams at
last word.
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:43:59 GMT
From: geoff@icarus.ihug.co.nz (Geoff Merryweather. )
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst Who needs lots of money?
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:32:56 -0700, you wrote:
> Where can I get the video?
Go to the Britten web site (www.britten.co.nz ??) it is available
there.
Geoff
- --
Radar detector FAQ, Forte Agent automation FAQ, bathroom fan FAQ
and THE WORLDS BEST CHRISTMAS PUDDING RECIPE
are at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
REMOVE "DELETEME" SPAMBLOCKER FROM ADDRESS TO REPLYTO USENET POSTINGS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 11:48:25 -0700
From: "Terry Hayden"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: bean counters
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 14:01:53 -0400
From: Mark Mason
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
>Well, like you said, the bean counters have the final say in what you
>make. This is because Ford has to engineer to the lowest common
>denominator, and when all else is said and done your ultimate
>commitment is to the shareholders as much as to the people that buy
>Fords.
Two stories come to mind from that statement:
One of the Apollo astronauts was asked about the sense of pride and
confidence that he must have felt sitting on top of one of the most highly
advanced engineering machines built by man. He replied that he wasn't overly
confident knowing that the rocket consisted of over 1 million different
parts and most of them went to the lowest bidder...
Also, during an interview at the introduction of the Chrysler Prowler, one
of the exec's was asked by the press why it seemed Chrysler was able to
introduce low volume specially vehicles like the Viper and Prowler while
Ford and GM built mainly high volume grocery getters. The reply: "Because
Chrysler is run by car guys, not bean counters".
Back to m/c's...IMHO, there a still number of "motorcycle guys" in the
business even in the big four Japanese m/c companies. The GTS 1000 is a
recent example that comes to mind. And let's consider the recent Blackbird
or R-1...sure they are not a breathtaking engineering break throughs but
they both were designed with a primary purpose in mind that wasn't mostly
bean counting...if that was the case, the makers would be concentrating
mostly on new cruisers...that's where the largest market and profit margin
is these days.
Although there is profit motives behind building the best...there also
appears to be bragging rights involved in producing the fastest or quickest
bike.
Also, stay tuned for the 2000cc bikes that are going to be introduced for
the year 2000. Corny marketing tie in...you bet, but it will also raise the
yardstick to another level in a number of categories that is not strictly $$
driven.
cheers, Terry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:14:32 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Gearbox brake
>"....chain slack could cause brake judder. If the bottom chain run is slack
>when the brake is first applied, little load is applied to the disk, which
>may momentarily lock or else be slowed considerably below the corrosponding
My first streetbike ('73 CB750) had an interesting flaw in it: the brake
stay mounting bolt had become loose, and caused the hole to elongate. No
matter how gently one applied the brake, it would momentarily lock, causing
the tire to chirp.
It was quite hillarious to watch friends ride it.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:24:35 -0700
From: Edward Madrid
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
So do you want to get rid of it? Where is it located?
Eddie-
> ----------
> From: Marty Maclean[SMTP:mmaclean@ford.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 11:06 AM
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
>
> Edward Madrid wrote:
> >
> > Marty-
> > You want to get rid of that dirttracker? What is it anyway?
> > Eddie-
> >
>
> It's a YZ 360 in a Redline frame. Morris wheel in front, Kosman in
> back.
> Less than 200 #. It's also old...
>
> Marty
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:25:10 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Kevin Burns wrote:
>
> Marty,
> I totally agree and sympathize somewhat in the midst of this discussion. I
> teach high school students about design and problem solving. The first,
> and probably hardest point to get across is that everyone needs to be on
> the same page for the discussion to begin. Sometimes it just takes a bit
> longer to decipher that first page and reach an agreement in principle when
> the goals appear to be divergent.
Thanks. It helps...
>
> Boy, I like this list.
>
Yes; interesting, eh?
Marty
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:26:32 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Edward Madrid wrote:
>
> So do you want to get rid of it? Where is it located?
> Eddie-
>
I'd strongly consider it. The bike's in Kingman, AZ.
M
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:08:59 -0500
From: Edward Madrid
Subject: RE: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
Marty-
Why don't you e-mail me offline and give me the specifics on the bike,
condition, etc. and a price. I'm in California and will be going to
Arizona shortly. Maybe we can work something out or a trade if
interested.
Eddie-
emadrid@foxsports.net
> ----------
> From: Marty Maclean[SMTP:mmaclean@ford.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 1998 2:26 PM
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
>
> Edward Madrid wrote:
> >
> > So do you want to get rid of it? Where is it located?
> > Eddie-
> >
> I'd strongly consider it. The bike's in Kingman, AZ.
> M
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 12:25 -0800
From: "Griffiths, Duncan"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
Isn't this the same thing that Phil Irving wrote about 30 years ago?
Yamaha has done it in their TDM850. It sounds as if its a better
approach than the 180 degree setup.
Duncan
===============
> At 10:06 AM 7/23/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >Who's Bill Denton and what's he doing?
> He's owner of yam650@micapeak.com. He's shifting the 360 crank to a
270/90
> crank,
> Hoyt
I'm building a 180 deg Norton (God knows why...), but have an XS motor
sitting on the bench teasing me. I'll have to talk to the guy. Thanks!
Marty Maclean
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:54:17 -0500
From: "Thomas Alberti"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Harley bashing
> Thomas wrote "Maybe I'm stuck in the automobile frame of reference, but
> isn't "twin cam" a misnomer when applied to the new Harley engine? It's
> only one cam per bank, to me that's a single cam. Before, it was like a
> 1/2 cam."
>
> Is that more Harley-bashing, or are you being "factual". (PC Police at
> your service.)
Not Harley bashing, just being silly. ("1/2 cam")
As someone else said, they are "not for me", however one must respect the
fact that they have held on (and are flourishing) after nearly 100 years.
Hell, I'm from Milwaukee, I get a little sentimental when I see the swarms
that come here for the "Anniversary".
I prefer a bike with a little better performance and technology, but that's
just me. Thank God we all have different taste, "variety is the spice of
life", amen.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 16:56:26 -0500
From: "Thomas Alberti"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
>
> But seriously, if people want to ride Harleys and not bother anyone else,
I
> hope they have fun. Besides, these guys seem able to get more good
looking
> women to ride with them than any of the 'rice burner' crowd.
>
> mitch
Yah, what's up with that?!
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 18:01:03 -0400
From: Ed Scharnhorst
Subject: MC-Chassis Swallower Guzzi
In Digest 696 Ollie wrote:
> the arrangement is found on the countershaft sprocket of the Swallower
> Guzzi, if my buddy Ed didn't tell me any lies when he described it.
>
> Hoyt
Would I lie to you? I've got a jpg I can send you if you like! The drive is (or looks to be) turned 90
at the swing arm pivot, with a sprocket at the other end of the pivot (inboard of the respective arm
legs). The actual swingarm pivot plate is obscured by a foot peg plate. The plate is suspiciously big
for just a peg.
>Been there. Had to push one three miles the other day when I was testing
>w/o the points cover. (Anyone else remember points?)
Should I mention the particular shade of red you turned? FWIW, I spent the weekend riding a buddy's M-G
LM1. Had to return it on the "trailer of shame". Burnt up the points... =8-@
Ed Scharnhorst
(closet Guzzi-phile, so I don't throw rocks at anybody's low-tech Hog!)
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #702
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Saturday, July 25 1998 Volume 01 : Number 703
1. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
2. GD Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
3. "Joost 'Misano' Jochems" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Swallower Guzzi
4. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Boring Bar
5. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hossack type front end
6. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
7. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hossack type front end
8. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
9. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis Rocket jockey
10. RWa11@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
11. Dick Brewster Subj: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
> -> a balance shaft instead or done what Bill Dent is doing and made the
> -> cranks 90 deg units ... this eliminates most of the vibration at the
> -> source.
>
> A 90 degree crank in a vertical twin?! Huh. Does the engine use
> separate cams for each cylinder, or does he have to have custom > cams made?
Just take the stock cam, cut it in the middle, twist it 90 degrees, and
weld it back together.(It would probably be more accurate to hold
each end of the cam in a rotary milling table to get a true 90 degrees)
John Mead
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 23:00:40 -0700
From: GD
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
What do you want to get for the dirt tracker?
GD
Marty Maclean wrote:
> Edward Madrid wrote:
> >
> > Marty-
> > You want to get rid of that dirttracker? What is it anyway?
> > Eddie-
> >
>
> It's a YZ 360 in a Redline frame. Morris wheel in front, Kosman in back.
> Less than 200 #. It's also old...
>
> Marty
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 14:38:24 +0000
From: "Joost 'Misano' Jochems"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Swallower Guzzi
Hello Chassis nutty people,
I am a silent member on this list, BUT I run the Swallower Guzzi
together with Eric Willemse.
He build the chassis and I am doing the engine work on it.
If you want a JPEG from the chassis, just ask......
It is chaindriven. The shaft that exits the gearbox goes into the
chaindrive unit. This unit is behind the gearbox and contains a set
of gears like in the stock rear-end drive. It has an axle that exits
90 degrees and that carries the front sprocket. Easy......
At the moment we are designing a new gearset. The outgoing shaft is
breaking off the pignongear, due to metal fategue. The new set will
be a one piece setup.
This trouble occured since I made a short stroke Guzzi engine and we
gained some 30 km/h more topspeed. Also the horsepower went up
seriously. The engine is a 95mm bore, 70mm stroke, 992cc 2 valver. It
produces at the moment 102bhp @ 9650 rpm on my Dynojet dyno. The old
engine was a 95/78 1105cc motor, but the torque was too much to go
fast. Due to the chaindrive we have some advantage for choosing the
proper gear ratio, what was not possible with the shaftdrive.
At the moment Eric is rebuilding the chaindrive unit, while I am
building a new motor. I lost the crank....... It snapped in two
pieces looking for some horsepower after 10.000 rpm.....
It is a 25 year old crank from the V7Sport, designed for 50 ponies @
7000 RPM. Now it has to handle some 120 ponies.....
Joost Jochems.
Misano Motors
de Fok 17A
1742 PC Schagen
The Netherlands
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:02:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Boring Bar
- -> > What's the rod journal diameter on a Norton?
- -> Rod Journal = 1.75" Main Journal = 1.18"
1.18? Not 2.18?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:20:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hossack type front end
- -> before. I'm sending you the basics of all separately. If you have
- -> questions on other aspects of the topic, ask them here. You'll find
- -> others present can add a lot to what I know.
Have you tried any of the nylon-lined rod ends? The race car guys like
them because they have about the same load ratings as the metal rod
ends, but they remain tight much longer under road conditions.
==dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 04:21:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
- -> Sign up to the list and he'll tell all. He was investigating custom
- -> cams at last word.
Um, what list is that?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:22:10
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hossack type front end
At 04:20 AM 7/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
> Have you tried any of the nylon-lined rod ends? The race car guys like
>them because they have about the same load ratings as the metal rod
>ends, but they remain tight much longer under road conditions.
Haven't yet. I use the Heims only for steering, but there is some wear
there and it's possible that it may slow turning a bit. All in all the
device is so good that this hasn't mattered in practical terms.
Always wondered how Hossac got away with using Heims in the suspension
itself, though.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:22:43
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
At 04:21 AM 7/25/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>-> Sign up to the list and he'll tell all. He was investigating custom
>-> cams at last word.
>
> Um, what list is that?
yam650@micapeak.com, of course.
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 00:05:22 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis Rocket jockey
> One of the Apollo astronauts was asked about the sense of pride and
> confidence that he must have felt sitting on top of one of the most highly
> advanced engineering machines built by man. He replied that he wasn't overly
> confident knowing that the rocket consisted of over 1 million different
> parts and most of them went to the lowest bidder...
Who was that ? I heard that in a very funny speach he made out here
at a children's science convention. He also said ( when enquiring
about the splash down site ) that the designers were pretty confident
that if there was a malfunction they still were confident they could hit
the Pacific Ocean - which he said was close enough for government
work.
Cheers IAN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 10:34:16 EDT
From: RWa11@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
In a message dated 98-07-24 16:41:41 EDT, you write:
<< Isn't this the same thing that Phil Irving wrote about 30 years ago?
Yamaha has done it in their TDM850. It sounds as if its a better
approach than the 180 degree setup.
Duncan >>
Yes it is similar, and is the inspiration. My understanding is that Mr.
Irving advocated phasing the pistons so that when one pistons was at TDC the
other piston was at max velocity. Max, piston velocity occurs when the con.
rod is perpendicular to a line drawn fron the pin to crank axis. This angle
is about 76 deg. for a Triumph and 74 deg. for an XS 650. This arrangement
would maximize the conservation of angular momentum, improve primary balance a
bit, and would not introduce significant rocking couple.
The 270 deg. crank maximizes primary balance gains, improves the conservation
of angular momentum, and has a rocking couple 50-70% of the 180 deg. twin.
Which is better?
Rex Wallace
PS: Phil Irving's article was reproduced in Classic Bike a few years back.
Does anyone know a net source for this article?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1998 23:00:36 -0700
From: Dick Brewster
Subject: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
I recently got a Yamaha XS650D as a project bike. My goal is to
put together a good handling twisty road and generally fun to
ride motorcycle. One of medium/long term goals is to measure
overall chassis stiffness in torsion and then make some
semi-intelligent modifications to improve chassis stiffness.
One of my immediate needs is to replace the 8 year old IRC tires
that are on it now.
Unfortunately, the stock rims (spoked wheels) are 19x1.85 front
and 18x2.15 rear. Both are marginally narrow for the tires that
came on the motorcycle. I want to stick with the stock hubs and
use wire wheels unless there is no way to get to good handling
with that limitation. The main reasons for that are that I like
the way they look and I already have the hubs on the motorcycle.
With the above self imposed handicap, I see two reasonably
appealing alternatives for tires now.
1. Get some reasonably decent tires that will work on the stock
rims for now, and replace them later after the chassis is sorted
out.
2. Put rims on the existing hubs that are right for whatever
tires I will be running after the chassis is sorted and get the
tires I should have on those rims
Option 1 is straight forward, get some decent quality stock sized
tires.
Any tire recommendations would be appreciated.
Option two is bit more complex but is appealing because it would
avoid tossing a set of tires in a few months and would also give
me a better indication of the effect my chassis mods made. But
before I do that, I need to answer a few questions.
What is a good referance on wheel building? I need to be able to
figure out if my hubs are wide enough to build wheels with enough
lateral stiffness for good handling.
I'm after good wet and dry paved road handling with more
stability on dirt roads than the monster tires on modern
motorcycles give. Dirt is a very -secondary- requirment, but my
experiance with a 180/55-18 rear on another motorcycle in dirt
and mud hints that stylishly big tires aren't the way to go
(:-). How should I determine the best tire size if I stick with
19 inch front and 18 inch rear wheels? It currently has a
100/90-19 front and a 120/90-18 rear. The front could (probably
shouldn't) be a -lot- wider. The rear could go up to a 140 wide,
maybe a 150 wide.
The motorcycle will weigh about 400 lb when I am done. I weigh
220.
Am I seriously shooting myself in the foot by trying to stay with
wire wheels and 19 and 18 inch rims?
Any comments?
Regards,
Dick
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #703
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Sunday, July 26 1998 Volume 01 : Number 704
1. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Rod ends
2. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: balance
3. uranus Subj: MC-Chassis Late reply
4. geoff@icarus.ihug.co.nz (Geoff Merryweather. ) Subj: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
5. Mfstj@aol.com Subj: MC-Chassis Concertina Suspension
6. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
8. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis The real MM
9. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Commando okay w/ Yamaha solid wheels?
10. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
11. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
12. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth couplings
13. Frank Camillieri Subj: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 12:46:50 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Rod ends
Dave wrote.
<<
Have you tried any of the nylon-lined rod ends? The race car guys like
them because they have about the same load ratings as the metal rod
ends, but they remain tight much longer under road conditions.
>>
Yes, don't even consider using the metal to metal rod ends. As far as the
plastic lined ones go there are several types of lining material available.
You don't have to stick with nylon.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 13:01:09 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: balance
Rex asked:
<<
PS: Phil Irving's article was reproduced in Classic Bike a few years back.
Does anyone know a net source for this article?
>>
Yes, it was one of his articles under the nom de plume of "Tecnicus" for
"MotorCyling".
No, I don't know which issue.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:23:58
From: uranus
Subject: MC-Chassis Late reply
Sorry, been away for a while . .
Julian wrote:
>If you can get two people on a chopper, then there's no reason why you
>couldn't design an FF to carry two people.
"Easy Rider" happened to be on the TV last night - choppers ARE feet-first,
aren't they? The F/R weight distribution may be a bit crazy, as is the
front suspension design, but most "highway pegs" are more FF than a Honda
Helix.
>As usual, the ultimate is the
>Ecomobile with a very comfortable back seat although the sitting
>position is a bit like being in birthing stirrups.
Like, you would know? I knew FF guys were strange, but . . .
Dave wrote:
> The alternative idea I've kicked around is to do a built-up crank []
Assembly would be by heat and pressure, plus welds where
>accessible.
A German company called Hirth (I think) used to make or design built up
cranks for Porsche with splines on all the joins, as violent clutch-dumping
off the start-line would be enough to untwist pressed-up roller cranks -
crunch! A more feasible way for a small shop would be to TIG around the
end of the big-end journal where it pokes through the counterweight after
the crank has been pressed, as you say. SKF used to have a patent on a
process to join cranks by means of a very tightly fitting taper joint,
"sucked" into place with a hydraulic lock, and just as easily seperated,
apparently, just undo a plug and pump the oil back in. Good enough for F1
in the early sixties.
Michael wrote:
>'ve not received any more shirt designs, so I'm issuing a second
>call. You can see the the designs that have been submitted at:
I like the Bruce Brown design or maybe it's just the red colour, I might
even buy one if it's on a nice shirt, Oneita or Fruit of the Loom maybe;
let's go for quality :-)
Re: Harley Bashing
Harleys never made much sense to me until I visited urban USA. No
roundabouts, scarcely any bends, slow moving (by our Brit standards)
Interstate traffic, well repaired roads (by our standards), very cheap
petrol (by our standards), no rain (it was California) - suddenly I
understood! Who needs brakes or suspension that work, fuel economy or mega
top speed? The bikes are built for a specific set of road conditions and
they work just fine there. Also the less frenetic frame of mind compared
to a power band that starts at 8,500 probably makes for a longer life (for
the rider).
David T.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:54:36 GMT
From: geoff@icarus.ihug.co.nz (Geoff Merryweather. )
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
>Am I seriously shooting myself in the foot by trying to stay with
>wire wheels and 19 and 18 inch rims?
All the good sticky rubber seems to be in 17" sizes, so if you were
lacing up new rims, then that would be the way to go.
As far as the standard chassis setup is concerned, replacing the 19"
front with an 18" would give you more tyre choies and shouldn't change
the handling or geometry by as much.
Geoff
- --
Radar detector FAQ, Forte Agent automation FAQ, bathroom fan FAQ
and THE WORLDS BEST CHRISTMAS PUDDING RECIPE
are at http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~geoff/
REMOVE "DELETEME" SPAMBLOCKER FROM ADDRESS TO REPLYTO USENET POSTINGS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:04 EDT
From: Mfstj@aol.com
Subject: MC-Chassis Concertina Suspension
Hi,
Does anyone on the list have any experience of concertina type
suspension like that fitted to the Yamaha OW61 or even any pictures; all I've
seen is the sketch on page30 of Tony Foale's book. I'm intrested as it may be
a possible solution to the problems I've been having finding a home for my
shock'. I want to keep the unsprung and partialy sprung weight as low as
possible on a Hossack front end I'm designing for a VFR400 NC21. I was planing
to use pull rods to a shock mounted ither verticaly in front of the engine or
horizontaly below it. Unfortuneatly nither is very practical in reality due to
lack of room and mounting points however there is just about room to put a
shock horizontaly in front of the engine with a pull rod to a rocker at one or
both ends.
Any advice, pictures or pointing and laughing welcome
Matthew Davies
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:33 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
- ------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
A description of the Norton system from another source.
Controversial from the day it was introduced, the Isolastic
engine-mounting system has certainty had its fair share of press
comment favourable and overwise. Norton feel that often it is blamed
for other problems, ie., incorrectly fitted or *nsuitable tyres and
they feel that provided that it is set up by the book, it handles and
performs as well as the best. The engine is "suspended" at three
points, by a plate from the top of the cylinder head by two rubber
mountings to the frame; by two bonded and two more rubber mountings
at the bottom front of the engine either side; and by three bonded
and two rubber buffers above the gearbox, to complete a triangular
mounting pattern. The whole essence of the system is that the
shimming, ie., play between the engine and frame, must be right. The
ideal gap is given as 10thou.
Too much play and the engine shakes in the frame, affecting handling
- - to little and vibration makes itself felt, the exhaust system
remains in isolation with the engine by way of rubber mountings at its
only point of contact with the frame, at the rear.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:34 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
> Any pictures??
>
> Jim
> > I help a guy that put a single in a RGV chassis and we rubber mount the
> >front of the motor and it made a great improvement in the vibration.
> > GD
> >
I've got a few pictures of the Suzuki/Husaberg, but haven't finished
that roll of film yet. I've also got some photos of Bob Green's
Harris/Husaberg to scan for the website.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:34 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis The real MM
> I was surprised at MM's great candor in dunking the idea. As
When I read this I'll admit to being a bit puzzled, until I realized
it was Marty MacLean that was being referenced, and not me.
It might be nice to distinguish a bit more between the MMs in the
future, if only to reduce the confusion of one of the pair.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:34 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Commando okay w/ Yamaha solid wheels?
> I also have a set of Yamaha SR-500 cast wheels
> which I might like to use on the Commando.
Hello Jon,
Those wheels are both narrow and heavy. Use them on your boat for an
anchor.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:34 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
> Tesla proposed that a great building could be reduced to rubble
> with only a glorified metronome correctly placed and phased.
Hello Calvin,
>From the biography on Tesla I read he actually came close to bringing
down a building with the vibration inducer. Since the building in
the test was where his workshop was, he aborted the test before
bringing it down upon himself.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:35 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
> set the image and nostalgia aside. The H-D fairing has been acknowledged
> as one of the best aerodynamic devices around today, even though they did
> it 25? Years ago. Also, the current VR1000, in the hands of Pascal
While H-D deserves credit for commissioning the fairing and actually
using on their racers, at least the first versions were done by the
Wixom fairing company at the Cal-Tech wind tunnel.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 17:55:35 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth couplings
> A German company called Hirth (I think) used to make or design
> built up cranks for Porsche with splines on all the joins, as
The Hirth couplings were also used on the late Guzzi single racers.
>From Vic Willoughby's "Classic Motorcycle Engines" (and why haven't
every one of you already bought everything by Vic that is in print?
You are missing out on some informative and entertaining reading):
"Clamping the two bobweights to the 36mm diameter hollow crankpin was
a double-ended, differentially threaded stud with internal splines at
both ends for assembly and dismantling".
>From his section on the NSU racers: "No part of the 1954 engine was
more impressive than the new five-piece crankshaft, built up very
rigidly by Hirth coulings and supported on four roller bearings. The
middle portion comprised a straight-cut spur gear formed in the
middle of a short hollow shaft of 35mm journal diameter; all drives
wre taken from this gear - transmission and ancilliaries alike. On
each end face of the short shaft was machined a fan-shape series of
radial serrations to mate with similar serrations on the inner face
of the adjacent 5 inch diameter flywheel disc with its integral
hollow crankpin. The three parts were united by a double-ended bolt
passing through the middle, with a different-pitch thread at each
end. Since the female threads in the flywheel discs had
correspondingly different pitches, turning the bolt clamped the
assembly securely together. That is a Hirth coupling".
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:07:58 -0400
From: Frank Camillieri
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
Dick Brewster wrote:
>
> I recently got a Yamaha XS650D as a project bike. My goal is to
> put together a good handling twisty road and generally fun to
> ride motorcycle. One of medium/long term goals is to measure
> overall chassis stiffness in torsion and then make some
> semi-intelligent modifications to improve chassis stiffness.
I don't know how the later XS650's handled but if they were like the
first years I wouldn't use a smaller front wheel. I worked for a Yamaha
dealer back then and we had to bend the frame on one customers bike to
end the speed wobble. I will say he insisted on mounting a knapsack on
his sissy bar. I also tried racing one and the pipes grounded so hard I
crashed (even after removing the mufflers). It was an evil handling
machine so I think it probably had a weak frame. On the other hand the
engine seemed to be bulletproof. We had one with over 100,000 miles that
had never been apart.
Good luck
Frank Camillieri
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #704
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Monday, July 27 1998 Volume 01 : Number 705
1. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
2. "Ray or Emily Brooks" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Concertina Suspension
3. Frank Camillieri Subj: MC-Chassis Norton Isolastic suspension
4. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
5. "Michael Moore" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
6. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Suspension unit mounting
7. dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams) Subj: MC-Chassis Late reply
8. "van der Merwe, Geo J (GEA, 082092)" Subj: MC-Chassis RATZ Racer
9. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
10. "Griffiths, Duncan" Subj: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks
11. "Griffiths, Duncan" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
12. "Gary Beale" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
13. RWa11@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 09:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
The Wixom fairings were so good that BMW used them (with holes
cut into the sides for the cylinders) instead of having ones made.
This was for their 1970's USA "superbike" racing team.
John Mead
- ----------
>
> > set the image and nostalgia aside. The H-D fairing has been acknowledged
> > as one of the best aerodynamic devices around today, even though they did
> > it 25? Years ago. Also, the current VR1000, in the hands of Pascal
>
> While H-D deserves credit for commissioning the fairing and actually
> using on their racers, at least the first versions were done by the
> Wixom fairing company at the Cal-Tech wind tunnel.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
> Michael Moore
> Euro Spares, SF CA
> Distributor of Lucas RITA and Powerbase products
> Sole North American distributor of "The Racing Motorcycle: a technical guide
> for constructors"
> Host of 6 m/c email lists (details on the web site)
> http://www.eurospares.com
> AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:11:52 -0400
From: "Ray or Emily Brooks"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Concertina Suspension
The Britten mounts the rear shock in front of the engine and uses pull rods
and a rocker. They have a web site that might have helpful photos.
Ray
- ----------
> From: Mfstj@aol.com
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Concertina Suspension
> Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 5:55 PM
>
> Hi,
> Does anyone on the list have any experience of concertina type
> suspension like that fitted to the Yamaha OW61 or even any pictures; all
I've
> seen is the sketch on page30 of Tony Foale's book. I'm intrested as it
may be
> a possible solution to the problems I've been having finding a home for
my
> shock'. I want to keep the unsprung and partialy sprung weight as low as
> possible on a Hossack front end I'm designing for a VFR400 NC21. I was
planing
> to use pull rods to a shock mounted ither verticaly in front of the
engine or
> horizontaly below it. Unfortuneatly nither is very practical in reality
due to
> lack of room and mounting points however there is just about room to put
a
> shock horizontaly in front of the engine with a pull rod to a rocker at
one or
> both ends.
> Any advice, pictures or pointing and laughing welcome
>
> Matthew Davies
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 21:23:16 -0400
From: Frank Camillieri
Subject: MC-Chassis Norton Isolastic suspension
I raced some Nortons with isolastic back in the late 60's and thought
they were the finest handling bikes at that time. They used to set the
shimming real tight so you got a little more vibration but it was still
pretty smooth compared to other twins.
Frank Camillieri
USCRA #33
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 18:56:35 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
> The Wixom fairings were so good that BMW used them (with holes
> cut into the sides for the cylinders) instead of having ones made.
> This was for their 1970's USA "superbike" racing team.
Hello John,
Somewhere here I have a period flyer from a fiberglass firm in the
Eastern US, called something like Chiavarelli, in which (as I
recall) they show a picture of the F750 North BMW fairing and claim
they supplied it to Butler and Smith.
I'll post back if I find it.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:04:35 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
> I don't know how the later XS650's handled but if they were like the
> first years I wouldn't use a smaller front wheel. I worked for a Yamaha
> dealer back then and we had to bend the frame on one customers bike to
> end the speed wobble. I will say he insisted on mounting a knapsack on
> his sissy bar. I also tried racing one and the pipes grounded so hard I
> crashed (even after removing the mufflers). It was an evil handling
> machine so I think it probably had a weak frame. On the other hand the
Hello Frank,
The later "standard" model XS650s benefited quite a bit from some
chassis development performed by Percy Tait. The early ones do have
a pretty poor rep for handling.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:55:14 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Suspension unit mounting
Matthew asked,
<<
Does anyone on the list have any experience of concertina type
suspension like that fitted to the Yamaha OW61 or even any pictures; all
I've
seen is the sketch on page30 of Tony Foale's book. I'm intrested as it may
be
a possible solution to the problems I've been having finding a home for my
shock'. I want to keep the unsprung and partialy sprung weight as low as
possible on a Hossack front end
>>
As it'll be another 2 hours before I post your books, you've done well to
know what's on page 30.
The main advantage of the OW61 solution was purely that of packaging.
However there is a slight unsprung mass advantage over a system using the
same shock and overall leverage ratio.
The equivalent unsprung mass (as seen at the rear axle) of a suspension
component is inversely proportional to the square of the leverage ratio of
that component. For example, if you mount a suspension unit with a leverage
ratio of 2:1 compared with the axle then the equivalent unsprung mass will
be 1/4 of that if the same suspension unit moved at axle velocity.
Now, if you mount the unit as per the OW61 then each end of the unit will
only have to move with 1/2 of the velocity compared to that of the case of
one end being fixed, thus for the same case of 2:1 leverage the equivalent
unsprung mass of each end of the unit will be 1/4 * 1/4 or 1/16, but as we
now have both ends "unsprung" the total effective unsprung mass will be 1/16
* 2 or 1/8. This compares with 1/4 when one end is fixed.
The above implicitly assumes that both ends of the unit have the same mass,
they don't of course but the difference is small when you factor in the
spring mass.
You also have to consider the contribution made to effective unsprung mass
from the neccessity of having 2 bell cranks and any extra linkage in
general.
Overall, any reduction in unsprung mass is unlikely to be worth the problems
of pursuing this path for that reason alone, packaging is probably the most
sensible criteria for selecting this type of design.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 05:45:00 -0500
From: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)
Subject: MC-Chassis Late reply
- -> the crank has been pressed, as you say. SKF used to have a patent on
- -> a process to join cranks by means of a very tightly fitting taper
- -> joint, "sucked" into place with a hydraulic lock, and just as easily
- -> seperated, apparently, just undo a plug and pump the oil back in.
- -> Good enough for F1 in the early sixties.
I first read about that in one of LJK Setright's books. It was very
interesting, but I was never able to find anything more about it.
Speaking of Setright, has anyone collected his various car/motorcycle
columns into books yet? I used to subscribe to magazines just to read
his stuff.
==dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us======================================
I've got a secret / I've been hiding / under my skin / | Who are you?
my heart is human / my blood is boiling / my brain IBM | who, who?
=================================== http://home1.gte.net/42/index.htm
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 08:26:24 -0400
From: "van der Merwe, Geo J (GEA, 082092)"
Subject: MC-Chassis RATZ Racer
I was wondering what happened to the RATZ bike? They did this huge article
in one of the magazines, but I haven't heard a thing about it after that. I
think it was Parker who designed it, correct? Does anybody have info on this
ultra cool scooter?
Geo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:42:16
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
At 05:45 AM 7/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
>
>-> the crank has been pressed, as you say. SKF used to have a patent on
>-> a process to join cranks by means of a very tightly fitting taper
>-> joint, "sucked" into place with a hydraulic lock, and just as easily
>-> seperated, apparently, just undo a plug and pump the oil back in.
>-> Good enough for F1 in the early sixties.
You can't possibly suck something into a press fit tight enough to do any
good. That's because suction is limited to 14.7 PSI, whereas any good press
works at about 3-5000 PSI. Adding that up over the area of the ram is how
one gets multi-ton loads on the work. You'll never get that with suction
... well, unless your piston is many many sq ft in area. <=How does one
build this into a crank?
The tapered pin idea, BTW, also appeared on Sachs cranks. I built one of
them about 15 years back. The beauty of this is that you can asm everything
with one silly little rap from a plastic mallet and it's nearly home; then
you align it very easily in your fixture because it's still not real tight.
Once alignment is right, the last little bit of pressing is nearly
foolproof. To get the right final set, one simply bottomed out on the pin
ends; these were carefully finished to be the right dia relative to the pin
bores in the crank cheeks, at that length. I've never worked on one which
was easier to do.
I have doubts that there is any way to patent this, because people have
been setting things on tapered shanks or shafts for several centuries now.
One other application is found in big bearings for use in industrial
machines. Timkin makes a series with tapered bores meant to be pressed onto
tapered shaft ends; they use this method to set the running radial
clearance. They also advise customers to have a set of radial ports in the
shaft end which communicate to an axial drillway with a grease fitting it
it. The bng is asm to the shaft by heating in oil and drawing it on with a
lock-plate on the shaft end. To get it off, on just applies the grease gun.
Timkin recommends not taking the lockplate all the way off though, as one
can shoot the bearing a considerable distance by pumping it off. <=That
works for me too!!) Enjoy.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 7:54 -0800
From: "Griffiths, Duncan"
Subject: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks
FWIW, Mercedes used Hirth cranks on their real 300SLR's.
Duncan
==========
A German company called Hirth (I think) used to make or design built up
cranks for Porsche with splines on all the joins, as violent
clutch-dumping
off the start-line would be enough to untwist pressed-up roller cranks -
crunch!
uranus
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 7:58 -0800
From: "Griffiths, Duncan"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Frame building
I don't have an electronic version, but if nobody else can get them
scanned, I'll dig them out for you. If I rememeber correctly, Irving's
first article discussed using 90 degrees. The second article discussed
the change to ~75 degrees.
Duncan
=============
PS: Phil Irving's article was reproduced in Classic Bike a few years
back.
Does anyone know a net source for this article?
Rex Wallace
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:09:52 -0400
From: "Gary Beale"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
Avon makes some great treaded race rubber for narrow 18" and 19" rims.
While race rubber is not ideal for a street bike, the Avons are likely to be
better than anything else available. I believe Avon has a web site, plus
distributors can be reached through the WERA Vintage and AHRMA web sites.
Gary Beale
gbeale@atlanta.dg.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brewster
To: mc-chassis-design
Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 2:05 AM
Subject: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
snip
>Unfortunately, the stock rims (spoked wheels) are 19x1.85 front
>and 18x2.15 rear. Both are marginally narrow for the tires that
>came on the motorcycle. I want to stick with the stock hubs and
>use wire wheels unless there is no way to get to good handling
>with that limitation. The main reasons for that are that I like
>the way they look and I already have the hubs on the motorcycle.
>
snip
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:20:02 EDT
From: RWa11@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks
In a message dated 98-07-27 11:24:12 EDT, you write:
<< FWIW, Mercedes used Hirth cranks on their real 300SLR's.
Duncan
==========
A German company called Hirth (I think) used to make or design built up
cranks for Porsche with splines on all the joins, as violent
clutch-dumping
off the start-line would be enough to untwist pressed-up roller cranks -
crunch!
uranus >>
Hirth also makes a 2-stroke opposed twin for the homebuilt aircraft market.
It weighs 70 lbs (including carbs, alternator and exhaust) and makes 60 hp @
5700 rpm. Let's see, a BMW R-bike and some tunning and you might have a real
neat special.
Rex Wallace
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #705
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, July 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 706
1. David Weinshenker Subj: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
2. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
3. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Cranks
4. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re:RATZ
5. uranus Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Hirth Couplings
6. "Griffiths, Duncan" Subj: MC-Chassis Tube strength
7. GD Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks
8. Eugene Shafir <04shafir@cua.edu> Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Tube strength
9. yhakim@m5.sprynet.com Subj: MC-Chassis FFE steering linkages
10. "Matthew O'Conner" Subj: MC-Chassis swing arm drag
11. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
12. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Tube strength
13. Les Sharp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:35:03 -0700
From: David Weinshenker
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
Gary Beale wrote:
> Avon makes some great treaded race rubber for narrow 18" and 19" rims.
> While race rubber is not ideal for a street bike, the Avons are likely to be
> better than anything else available.
I believe some of these tires are also available in "TF" ('track
formula')
as well as the softer "SC" ('sprint compound') that the racers like.
- -dave w
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:31:33 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
AVON TIRE REVIEW:
I am very pleased with the performance received from the AM20 (F)
,AM21 (R) on my Morini. (second set). I am sure the light weight has
allowed the over 7K miles. The center tread is fine, but the sides
are wearing thin with a bit of lumpiness thrown in. (Fronts)
Scuffing is all the way to the edge of the tread, and I always feel
like there is more to go. Recently developed Front end chatter on
hard corners may be due to this wear pattern. I really should put a
short preload spacer behind the fork springs though. These sneakers
need replacing now as the sidewalls are checking a bit also. Two
seasons old. I will be putting these same tires on again. Avon is
actively interested in supplying for vintage sizes.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Gary Beale
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
> Date: Monday, July 27, 1998 3:09 PM
>
> Avon makes some great treaded race rubber for narrow 18" and 19"
rims.
> While race rubber is not ideal for a street bike, the Avons are
likely to be
> better than anything else available. I believe Avon has a web
site, plus
> distributors can be reached through the WERA Vintage and AHRMA web
sites.
>
> Gary Beale
> gbeale@atlanta.dg.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick Brewster
> To: mc-chassis-design
> Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 2:05 AM
> Subject: MC-Chassis What tires for project bike?
>
>
> snip
>
> >Unfortunately, the stock rims (spoked wheels) are 19x1.85 front
> >and 18x2.15 rear. Both are marginally narrow for the tires that
> >came on the motorcycle. I want to stick with the stock hubs and
> >use wire wheels unless there is no way to get to good handling
> >with that limitation. The main reasons for that are that I like
> >the way they look and I already have the hubs on the motorcycle.
> >
> snip
> >
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:57:50 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Cranks
Ollie said:
<<
The tapered pin idea, BTW, also appeared on Sachs cranks. I built one of
them about 15 years back
>>
Velocettes used them decades before that also.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:47:42 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re:RATZ
Geo asked:
<<
I was wondering what happened to the RATZ bike? They did this huge article
in one of the magazines, but I haven't heard a thing about it after that. I
think it was Parker who designed it, correct? Does anybody have info on this
ultra cool scooter?
>>
Yes it was from Parker, but as Michael has mentioned before it was quite
similar to an earlier design.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:31:54
From: uranus
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Hirth Couplings
At 18:04 26/07/98 -0700, you wrote:
>The Hirth couplings were also used on the late Guzzi single racers []
That is a Hirth coupling".
Thanks for that info Michael.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 13:49 -0800
From: "Griffiths, Duncan"
Subject: MC-Chassis Tube strength
I need some help on selecting the appropriate tubing for a given load. I
know the force acting on the tube at a given point, and I have moment of
inertia, section modulus, and radium of gyration for a range of different
tube sections/wall thickness. What formula do I use to determine the
appropriate selection?
Thanks for the help.
Duncan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:11:46 -0700
From: GD
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks
If I was properly informed when I was working in a crank grinding shop
years ago it is called differential spline.
GD
Griffiths, Duncan wrote:
> FWIW, Mercedes used Hirth cranks on their real 300SLR's.
> Duncan
> ==========
> A German company called Hirth (I think) used to make or design built up
> cranks for Porsche with splines on all the joins, as violent
> clutch-dumping
> off the start-line would be enough to untwist pressed-up roller cranks -
> crunch!
> uranus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:55:31 -0400
From: Eugene Shafir <04shafir@cua.edu>
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tube strength
Griffiths, Duncan wrote:
>
> I need some help on selecting the appropriate tubing for a given load. I
> know the force acting on the tube at a given point, and I have moment of
> inertia, section modulus, and radium of gyration for a range of different
> tube sections/wall thickness. What formula do I use to determine the
> appropriate selection?
>
> Thanks for the help.
> Duncan
It depends on how force is applied ( distributed or concentrated ) and
how tubing is fixed (one end or both ends).
Eugene.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:10:24 -0700
From: yhakim@m5.sprynet.com
Subject: MC-Chassis FFE steering linkages
I remember one of the complaints riders had about the Bimota Tesi was
lack of feel. The RATZ bike was supposed to have resolved or improved
(well it claimed to) this issue by having a dummy fork similar to the
BMW/Saxon. Fior/Britten had a hinge like linkage. Is there any
consensus on the best?
Yousuf
wmrra #935
FZR400/600
+-------------------+
| LICK HERE!!! |
| |
| * |
| |
| (You may be one |
| of the lucky 25) |
+-------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 18:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Matthew O'Conner"
Subject: MC-Chassis swing arm drag
I recently removed the rear wheel and shocks from my '68 Honda CL450K road
race thingee and was looking for some play in the swing arm bushings. At
the last race at SIR (won the morning race, dropped 2.9 seconds off my
best time in the open vintage race then crashed), my bike was doing a slow
weave while (slightly) leaned over going into turn one (very easy right
hand, full throttle at maybe 118mph). Several people suggested that I
probably had at least slightly worn s/a bushings (mine are the typical
upgrade bronze ones over a new OEM collar). Incidentally, the crash was
in a 65mph turn where no weave was evident. The weave is only noticable
at near full speed.
Alas, upon removal of the shocks and wheel, not only did I find no play, I
found that the s/a did NOT drop by its own weight. I have an OEM honda
service bulitten from the early 70s that states that the correct torque is
where the s/a just barely falls down by its own weight.
I plan to have the bushings inspected by a shop w/ an inside diameter dial
gauge (I don't have one) anyway but I'm beginning to think that the weave
is from something else.
Any other ideas?
matt
omrra #82
wmrra #82
1995 CROC most improved rider
1996 ommra 500cc vintage champion
(1997 went to Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: new Harley twin cam & Harley bashing
I bought many pieces of fiberglass from Mr. Chiavarelli. He lived in
Connecticut and was the "plug master". He would borrow a fairing from one
of the AAMRR (American Association of Motorcycle Road Racers), a now
defunct racing group in northeastern US. He would then make a plug of the
fairing and give the original, plus one of his copies, back to the racer the
following race.
He did this for BMW because he was closer than Wixom and could make
the changes Udo wanted. By the way Udo was the one who told me where
the original fairings came from when I stopped by BMW NA one day back in
the 70's to pick up parts for my dealer friend.
John Mead
- ----------
>
> > The Wixom fairings were so good that BMW used them (with holes
> > cut into the sides for the cylinders) instead of having ones made.
> > This was for their 1970's USA "superbike" racing team.
>
> Hello John,
>
> Somewhere here I have a period flyer from a fiberglass firm in the
> Eastern US, called something like Chiavarelli, in which (as I
> recall) they show a picture of the F750 North BMW fairing and claim
> they supplied it to Butler and Smith.
>
> I'll post back if I find it.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>
>
> Michael Moore
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 10:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tube strength
Its crude but I use 3/4 inch and 1 inch .065 4130 for everything. I also have
the frames heat treated by a local heat treater after welding.
John Mead
- ----------
> Griffiths, Duncan wrote:
> >
> > I need some help on selecting the appropriate tubing for a given load. I
> > know the force acting on the tube at a given point, and I have moment of
> > inertia, section modulus, and radium of gyration for a range of different
> > tube sections/wall thickness. What formula do I use to determine the
> > appropriate selection?
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> > Duncan
>
>
> It depends on how force is applied ( distributed or concentrated ) and
> how tubing is fixed (one end or both ends).
>
> Eugene.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:27:43 +0800
From: Les Sharp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
>
> At 05:45 AM 7/27/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >-> the crank has been pressed, as you say. SKF used to have a patent on
> >-> a process to join cranks by means of a very tightly fitting taper
> >-> joint, "sucked" into place with a hydraulic lock, and just as easily
> >-> seperated, apparently, just undo a plug and pump the oil back in.
> >-> Good enough for F1 in the early sixties.
>
> You can't possibly suck something into a press fit tight enough to do any
> good. That's because suction is limited to 14.7 PSI, whereas any good press
> works at about 3-5000 PSI.
Hoyt,
I think Setright just said it was a drawn up taper, I don't remember the
part about suction, only using hydraulic pressure to blow the cranks
apart for servicing. In any case, the application was joining two forged
four-throw cranks together longitudinally, not joining the flywheels and
pins. The coupling was double-ended and had a gear machined onto it to
pass the power to the transmission, which was under the engine. Thus,
apart from the minimal differences in balance between the two
eight-cylinder "halves" of the engine, there wasn't any power being
transmitted right through the coupling. I think the tapers were small,
like 2 degrees, and about 2.5 inches diameter. If they were pressed up
as you suggest, I'd imagine they'd carry a high torque load. The
application was the Coventry Climax flat-16 GP engine.
- --
Best regards, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
Planet Gearhead: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/conten~1.htm
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #706
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, July 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 707
1. "Kelvin Blair" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 Heat treating 4130
2. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis Climax taper.
3. Brian Knowles Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
4. Hoyt McKagen Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Climax taper.
5. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis swing arm drag
6. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
7. "doug rawlings" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Tony Foales website
8. les Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
9. les Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
10. les Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Climax taper.
11. Bill Heckel Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks in BMW
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 19:59:38 +0800
From: "Kelvin Blair"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 Heat treating 4130
John Mead wrote:
> Its crude but I use 3/4 inch and 1 inch .065 4130 for everything. I also
have
> the frames heat treated by a local heat treater after welding.
>
>
Hello John
What process does your heat treater use, temperatures, times and process
etc. Is there any problem with distortion? Does he have an oven large
enough to fit a whole frame in? I would be very interested to know the
results of this process and what filler rod you use if you are heat
treating. Have you ever had any tests for hardness at the weld area and
HAZ. Most people I know don't bother with heat treating 4130 some just use
a little pre-heat and slow cooling with a low carbon steel filler rod. I
like the idea of heat treating to get the whole thing back to original
tensile strength and hardness, but have never heard of anyone actually
doing it properly with 4130 ie hardening and tempering and choice of filler
rod. How's it done John?
Regards
Kelvin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:42:45 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis Climax taper.
> > You can't possibly suck something into a press fit tight enough to do any
> > good. That's because suction is limited to 14.7 PSI, whereas any good press
> > works at about 3-5000 PSI.
>
> The
> application was the Coventry Climax flat-16 GP engine.
>
The article I read on the flat 16 Coventry Climax crank suggested that
they used oil pressure introduced halfway up the taper to assemble it
as well. Then pressure behind the crank to push apart. It was said to
be able to be used time and time again.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 98 06:07:06 -0700
From: Brian Knowles
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
Les Sharp said:
> In any case, the application was joining two forged
>four-throw cranks together longitudinally, not joining the flywheels and
>pins.
(snip)
>The application was the Coventry Climax flat-16 GP engine.
BRM, you mean. I think.
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 09:10:37 -0700
From: Hoyt McKagen
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Climax taper.
Ian Drysdale wrote:
>
> > > You can't possibly suck something into a press fit tight enough to do any
> > > good. That's because suction is limited to 14.7 PSI, whereas any good press
> > > works at about 3-5000 PSI.
> >
> > The
> > application was the Coventry Climax flat-16 GP engine.
> >
>
> The article I read on the flat 16 Coventry Climax crank suggested that
> they used oil pressure introduced halfway up the taper to assemble it
> as well.
Oil introduced under pressure halfway along a taper can only separate
it, in absence of other forces. That is precisely the principle behind
hydraulic removal of tapered bngs, which I described previously. You can,
however supply oil pressure there AND push from outside; this will expand
the taper and let it go farther up. However, a coat of oil or light
grease previously applied will do the same thing.
Oil pressure introduced in a blind pocket at the end of the taper will do
the same thing for disasm.
I suspect the article we have seen referenced was wrong if it says they
used oil pressure only to fit it up. The only way one can do that is with
an external apparatus, IE a press.
> It was said to
> be able to be used time and time again.
No reason why not. Toolrooms use tapers on things that are asm'd and
disasm'd over periods of decades.
Hoyt
- --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:47:05
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis swing arm drag
At 06:21 PM 7/27/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Alas, upon removal of the shocks and wheel, not only did I find no play, I
>found that the s/a did NOT drop by its own weight.
You'll have to inspect mechaniclly, as the bushings aren't the only things
which cause the SA to hang in place. You may have crud under the dust caps
or even in the sleeves themselves, and this may be masking some play.
>I plan to have the bushings inspected by a shop w/ an inside diameter dial
>gauge (I don't have one) anyway but I'm beginning to think that the weave
>is from something else.
Check condition of steering head bngs for brinelling, and check especially
the fit of the top bng on the stem. It should be but never is a very light
press-fit, about the degree that needs a rap from a small leather mallet to
seat it. I can make you a stronger, better fitted stem, but Loctite
products will give you a quick fix with indication of whether this is the
problem.
You should go over your fork too. Quite often there is enough play in
slider bushings to make some misbehaviors. Take wheel and springs out, and
drain oil. Check for fit by pulling and pushing the axle end of the leg
against the tube. Check it in several positions along the travel. If it's
good there will be no play to about .003-.005"; if it's more than that you
need to replace bushings and/or legs.
You probably know I offer precision SA bushings. I can also re-work forks
and fit them up the same way. Enjoy.
Best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:24:03
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
At 05:27 PM 7/28/98 +0800, you wrote:
>pins. The coupling was double-ended and had a gear machined onto it to
>pass the power to the transmission, which was under the engine.
I was extremely interested in that motor, but the layout as I remember it
doesn't fit your description. It was two flat-8s set one above the other.
The cranks weren't coupled end to end, but they both drove through gears to
a small shaft which ran to the trans, mounted behind the motor as is
conventional. The primary drive was through gears and each bank upper and
lower may have had a coupling as you describe in the middle with that
pinion on it. I just don't recall for sure whether the drive was in the
middle of the cranks or not but it would be the most likely place.
Big problem in the design was the shaft used to couple the primary gear to
the trans. It was subject to torsional resonance and broke in testing. They
were unable to fit a bigger one because of interference with other
components and one smaller wouldn't take the power. Too bad. I also thought
it impolite of the FIM to go to the 3-liter formula while Coventry Climax
was testing the 16 cylinder.
best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 06:57:02 PDT
From: "doug rawlings"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Tony Foales website
Whilst re-reading Mr. Foales articles on his webiste I note that at the
end of the "Springs" article it is stated that such things as rising
rate and spring and damping rates will be discussed "Next time"... I
assume that these articles were originally in a magazine of some kind
but is there any way of getting hold of them? Having only read the
first addition of the book so far I have found the articles to be an
interesting supplement. The reason I ask now is that a friend and I are
working on a cantilever rear suspension for, of all things, a racing
moped used in a fun event.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:49:52 +0800
From: les
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
batwings@i-plus.net wrote:
>
> At 05:27 PM 7/28/98 +0800, you wrote:
> >pins. The coupling was double-ended and had a gear machined onto it to
> >pass the power to the transmission, which was under the engine.
>
> I was extremely interested in that motor, but the layout as I remember it
> doesn't fit your description. It was two flat-8s set one above the other.
> The cranks weren't coupled end to end, but they both drove through gears to
> a small shaft which ran to the trans, mounted behind the motor as is
> conventional. The primary drive was through gears and each bank upper and
> lower may have had a coupling as you describe in the middle with that
> pinion on it. I just don't recall for sure whether the drive was in the
> middle of the cranks or not but it would be the most likely place.
>
> Big problem in the design was the shaft used to couple the primary gear to
> the trans. It was subject to torsional resonance and broke in testing. They
> were unable to fit a bigger one because of interference with other
> components and one smaller wouldn't take the power. Too bad. I also thought
> it impolite of the FIM to go to the 3-liter formula while Coventry Climax
> was testing the 16 cylinder.
>
Hoyt,
I did hear of a motor such as you describe, but don't remember who built
it. The Coventry 16 however was laid out as I described, I should still
have a picture of of it stashed away somewhere...
Coventry also experienced some bad vibes around the 3,000 rpm level,
which they avoided running it at and thus "solved" the problem! I
thought it was rather rude of the FIM to spoil the fun too, I would have
loved to have heard the device used in anger! The FIM also squelched
another British F1 engine (a V6) by suddenly banning turbos. Maybe they
have something against us Brits...
On your other post about wobbles:
Check condition of steering head bngs for brinelling, and check
especially
the fit of the top bng on the stem. It should be but never is a very
light
press-fit, about the degree that needs a rap from a small leather mallet
to
seat it. I can make you a stronger, better fitted stem, but Loctite
products will give you a quick fix with indication of whether this is
the
problem.
Is the usual tight fit not good? I ask since I have a modified frame I
don't want to junk that has a loose top bearing. I've seen panel beaters
heat and rapidly cool steel to shrink it, but wonder if this technique
might be a bad idea on a stressed part like the headstock. Any
suggestions beyond Loctite?
- --
ATB, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
URL: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:51:17 +0800
From: les
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
Brian Knowles wrote:
>
> Les Sharp said:
> > In any case, the application was joining two forged
> >four-throw cranks together longitudinally, not joining the flywheels and
> >pins.
> (snip)
> >The application was the Coventry Climax flat-16 GP engine.
>
> BRM, you mean. I think.
>
> Brian
NO!! It was the Coventry.
- --
ATB, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
URL: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 22:54:32 +0800
From: les
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Climax taper.
Hoyt McKagen wrote:
You can,
> however supply oil pressure there AND push from outside; this will expand
> the taper and let it go farther up. However, a coat of oil or light
> grease previously applied will do the same thing.
>
Hoyt,
That's it! That's just how it (the SKF process) worked, I should have
been less lazy and just searched the patent.
- --
ATB, Les
"Eye pierce heaven, foot stuck in mud"
URL: http://www.inside.com.tw/user/les/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:02:39 -0400
From: Bill Heckel
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks in BMW
Where would one find one of these Hirth motors?
RWa11@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 98-07-27 11:24:12 EDT, you write:
>
>
> Hirth also makes a 2-stroke opposed twin for the homebuilt aircraft market.
> It weighs 70 lbs (including carbs, alternator and exhaust) and makes 60 hp @
> 5700 rpm. Let's see, a BMW R-bike and some tuning and you might have a real
> neat special.
>
> Rex Wallace
How would it handle the clutch thrust? Is it piston port or reed?
Any other info???
- --
Bill Heckel
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #707
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Tuesday, July 28 1998 Volume 01 : Number 708
1. RWa11@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks in BMW
2. Mitch Casto Subj: MC-Chassis Motorcycle Online magazine and Three-wheeled Electric Commuter
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
4. uranus Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Climax Taper
5. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Harley bashing
6. Alan Lapp Subj: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
7. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
8. Alan Lapp Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
9. "Calvin Grandy" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
10. JBAKER1@aol.com Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Tube strength
11. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Articles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:17:28 EDT
From: RWa11@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Hirth cranks in BMW
In a message dated 98-07-28 12:09:10 EDT, you write:
<< Where would one find one of these Hirth motors? >>
Hello Bill
I saw the motor in an Aircraft Spruce and Specialty catalog. They do have an
URL and a E-mail answer line. I'm afraid I dont know much about the motor,
they do offer several sizes and layouts. I do know the Hirth makes a lot
power transmission equipment for a huge variety of applications. Everytime I
have dealt with Hirth stuff, it is of the Highest Quality.
Rex Wallace
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 12:26:53 -0400
From: Mitch Casto
Subject: MC-Chassis Motorcycle Online magazine and Three-wheeled Electric Commuter
There is a pretty good motorcycle website at: http://motorcycle.com. I especially
like the "Nut and Bolts" and "Cutting Edge" sections.
There is also a page about a three wheeled electric car called the Corbin
Sparrow.
mitch
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:23:41
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Late reply
At 10:49 PM 7/28/98 +0800, you wrote:
>I did hear of a motor such as you describe, but don't remember who built
>it. The Coventry 16 however was laid out as I described, I should still
>have a picture of of it stashed away somewhere...
Someone said BRM in answer to this. I did see a certain BRM at Watkins
Glenn about '65 or so. I remember it clearly as it was sitting there with
clear liquid dripping out of the intake trumpets and a gaggle of wrenches
standing around scratching their noggins and looking down-mouthed. I
watched while they used up two-three battery carts and a case of wheezing
fluid w/o a single fart from the pipes. Later, I saw D Hulme sliding it
backwards off the track during practice. He made about three loops in the
grass and boy did he look surprised! I guess they had replaced the plugs
and magic box or at least fed the gremlins some porridge or ale. Or maybe
they called in the exorcist. The point of course was that those trumpets
pointed straight outwards and the motor was a big rectangular device with
an upper and lower bank of pots and pipes from top and bottom both. Maybe
this is the one I was thinking of? That must have been a 3-liter. Now that
you've jogged my memory though, I do recall the CC being a flat 16 as you
described.
>Coventry also experienced some bad vibes around the 3,000 rpm level,
>which they avoided running it at and thus "solved" the problem!
Works for me!!
>another British F1 engine (a V6) by suddenly banning turbos. Maybe they
>have something against us Brits...
Works for me!!
>Is the usual tight fit not good?
It's never tight enough. I am talking about the innner upper race, which is
inevitably a slip fit on the stem and often rides partly on a threaded
portion. It is super common for these to wear some. On my stems I always
make it rather snug, damn the torpedoes about getting it on. Usually it
doesn't take PhD to feel the difference in the results.
>I ask since I have a modified frame I
>don't want to junk that has a loose top bearing. I've seen panel beaters
>heat and rapidly cool steel to shrink it, but wonder if this technique
>might be a bad idea on a stressed part like the headstock.
If this is an outer, you can shrink the head tube some. I know Tony came
out against using red-spotting to straighten tubes which have distorted in
the jig, but heck I do it and it's always been fine for me. A modification
of that is to heat the front oh say 10% of the circumference of the head
tube until it's red and soft. The expansion and softening together make it
shrink down when it's cooled off. The exact amount heated and how hot is
not a science, though, and you may get a bit of a knot there. Since I
wouldn't suggest you keep repeating this process and since you may
overshoot it the first time, you should probably practice on some
equivilently sized and thickness tubing to get the feeling first. I have
done it, it does work damno-fino, but YMMV.
Another technique a bit more gradual is to simply cold-peen the OD of the
head tube til you lock the bng in. I've done this too. MAYBE you'll be able
to get it back out later for replacement.
Finally, one can braze the cup inside and re-machine it.. I haven't done
this one yet, though it is probably the best idea in terms of control of
the process. I have machined HS tubes after brazing them into frames and
setting it up can be a bit tricky. It would be even harder if you had to do
only one end and get it concentric to and in the same plane with the
existing other end. In my case, I used a boring bar between centers and
held the frame by the HS in a cradle on carriage (used my lathe). All I
needed to do for the other end was to turn the boring bar around between
centers, w/o moving the frame.
HTH!!
best wishes,
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 18:31:45
From: uranus
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Climax Taper
>> >The application was the Coventry Climax flat-16 GP engine.
>>
>> BRM, you mean. I think.
I was talking about the CC flat-16 1.5 litre engine, which was foiled by
the 3-litre regs., but also because they found that a 4 valve per cylinder
V-8 engine flowed gas better and had less friction than a 2 valve per
cylinder flat-16. The BRM was two flat-8 1.5 litre engines joined together
as described to make a 3-litre H-16. The twin crank H configuration was
also by Napier for some aero engines, and they did rather better at
combining the crank outputs than BRM.
> You can,
>> however supply oil pressure there AND push from outside; this will expand
>> the taper and let it go farther up. However, a coat of oil or light
>> grease previously applied will do the same thing.
>>
> Hoyt,
Hoyt wins the coconut as usual - "The taper was about 2 per cent [ ] the
tapered stubs projecting from each flank of the central drive gear fitted
into corresponding recesses in the end of each half-crankshaft [ ] the
female tapers were expanded by injecting oil at high pressure through an
access hole in the half-crankshaft. With the female taper thus expanded
the components could be pulled up together, trapped air finding its way out
of a release hole drilled in each half-crankshaft." Or that's how LJK
Setright described the process, but it doesn't totally make sense, I mean,
what trapped air? - a major figure in journalism, fer sure, but he does
talk absolute bollocks on some occasions (unlike me ;-)), I remember him
writing several consecutive magazine articles arguing that car wheels are
held on by friction between the wheel and the hub. When the Renault Fuego
coupe came out he described the "beauty" of the styling as being like a
symphony (by Mahler, I think) - bet he's tried to forget that one
>That's it! That's just how it (the SKF process) worked, I should have
>been less lazy and just searched the patent.
I should have been less lazy and not used the word "suction" when I meant
something quite different. I always rush these answers because I feel that
as a digest reader I'm always one jump behind the conversation, and I have
to hurry and catch up. Perhaps I should res*bscribe to the regular list.
>I would have
>loved to have heard the device used in anger!
One of my older friends did hear the BRM H-16 in 1966 and the memory is
still vivid for him, peak power was around 11,000 . . Maybe Ian D could
put a .wav file of the V-8 at max revoultions on his website, I bet that
sounds pretty cool too, even though it is a single-plane crank :-)
David T.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:02:18 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Harley bashing
>This list stands out as a beacon of intellectual discourse
>and gentlemanly (and/or gentlewomanly) behavior.
>
>Yet, Harley bashing has always existed here and lately has
>escalated.
>
>It really strikes me as bigotry.
>
>Jon Hose
I, personally, don't engage in Harley bashing on the list as I think it's
somewhat dull, but I understand it. Generally speaking, the typical HD
represents the antithesis of what this list is dedicated to: the FUNCTION
and improvement thereof of a motorcycle. Many HD enthusiasts purchase and
modify their chosen mounts for purely asthaetic purposes and ignore the
many shortcomings of the basic design. In other words, HD jokes are the
MC_Chassis_Design equivalent of Blonde Jokes.
Don't get me wrong: there are some fine HDs out there - but they are in the
vast minority. One of my best friends used to race in the 883 class. When
he retired his bike, he put a 1200 kit on it and put it on the street. It
was every bit as fast as my old modified 4 valve 1100 Suzuki. It was quite
a bit narrower and handled better because he had done lots of research and
modifications in the area of suspension. On the street, that MC earned my
respect. However, when it was raced, it was a complete maintenance
nightmare: the entire top end was rebuilt every other race weekend, and new
valve springs and retainers every weekend. He was revving it nearly 3K RPM
over the factory redline. They just aren't designed to do that.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:03:04 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
>that the ignition failed at just bout the same time as when the con-rod
>went throught it...
My late father was an engineer of great practical vision. For the RC'rs in
the crowd - he used to modify and build RC/FF engines with Walt Good back
in the late '40's & early 50's. In that day, most of the model engines had
spark ignition. One of the techniques he used to hot-rod these small
engines was to change the rod ratio. (we had lots of broken Brown JRs
carefully wrapped in oily rags laying about in the shop)
In any case, to tie these ramblings together, he discovered that the
majority of rod failures had 2 common elements: high RPM and ignition
failure. In a normal cycle, the mixture ignites around 30 degrees BTDC, in
effect, cushioning the piston's arrival at TDC. When the mixture failed to
ignite, the piston's upward inertia would shock load the con rod until it
broke.
This example points out the importance of proper spark advance as well.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 14:55:12 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
Is it old news? (The shortest pencil exceeds my memory.) That con
rod stress is greatest, in tension, at the end of the exhaust cycle.
- ----------
> From: Alan Lapp
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 9:03 AM
>
> >that the ignition failed at just bout the same time as when the
con-rod
> >went throught it...
>
> My late father was an engineer of great practical vision. For the
RC'rs in
> the crowd - he used to modify and build RC/FF engines with Walt
Good back
> in the late '40's & early 50's. In that day, most of the model
engines had
> spark ignition. One of the techniques he used to hot-rod these
small
> engines was to change the rod ratio. (we had lots of broken Brown
JRs
> carefully wrapped in oily rags laying about in the shop)
>
> In any case, to tie these ramblings together, he discovered that
the
> majority of rod failures had 2 common elements: high RPM and
ignition
> failure. In a normal cycle, the mixture ignites around 30 degrees
BTDC, in
> effect, cushioning the piston's arrival at TDC. When the mixture
failed to
> ignite, the piston's upward inertia would shock load the con rod
until it
> broke.
>
> This example points out the importance of proper spark advance as
well.
>
> Al
> level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 16:31:24 +0100
From: Alan Lapp
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
>Is it old news? (The shortest pencil exceeds my memory.) That con
>rod stress is greatest, in tension, at the end of the exhaust cycle.
My fault. I should have specified that these model engines were all 2 strokes.
Al
level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:00:18 -0400
From: "Calvin Grandy"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
Alan.
I knew that your reference was two cycle, I was just drawing in the
four stroke corollary.
Regards
Calvin Grandy
- ----------
> From: Alan Lapp
> To: mc-chassis-design@list.sirius.com
> Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Con-Rod failure
> Date: Tuesday, July 28, 1998 11:31 AM
>
> >Is it old news? (The shortest pencil exceeds my memory.) That con
> >rod stress is greatest, in tension, at the end of the exhaust
cycle.
>
> My fault. I should have specified that these model engines were
all 2 strokes.
>
> Al
> level_5_ltd@earthlink.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:32:55 EDT
From: JBAKER1@aol.com
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Tube strength
Duncan,
You can email me privately if you want to look at this in more detail, I will
help you through it.
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:31:20 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Articles
Doug asked,
<<
Whilst re-reading Mr. Foales articles on his webiste I note that at the
end of the "Springs" article it is stated that such things as rising
rate and spring and damping rates will be discussed "Next time"... I
assume that these articles were originally in a magazine of some kind
but is there any way of getting hold of them?
>>
Yes, most of those articles were originally written for the British
SuperBike magazine during the 80s., although many were also published in
several other magazines worldwide including a small number in the American
magazine Hot Bike.
Several articles were originally hand written and I've lost the originals,
the ones posted on the site were only some of those that I had in electronic
form.
You'll either have to find an enlightened library, or find a friend with a
good collection of old mags.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #708
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, July 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 709
1. uranus Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Old Car engines
2. Ian Drysdale Subj: MC-Chassis Climax crank
3. batwings@i-plus.net Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Old Car engines
4. uranus Subj: MC-Chassis Re: Numbskull
5. Julian Bond Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: bean counters
6. Marty Maclean Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
7. "Michael Moore" Subj: MC-Chassis Another shirt design
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 23:28:58
From: uranus
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Old Car engines
At 14:36 28/07/98 -0700, you wrote:
>Someone said BRM in answer to this. I did see a certain BRM at Watkins
>Glenn about '65 or so. I remember it clearly as it was sitting there with
>clear liquid dripping out of the intake trumpets and a gaggle of wrenches
>standing around scratching their noggins and looking down-mouthed. I
>watched while they used up two-three battery carts and a case of wheezing
>fluid w/o a single fart from the pipes. Later, I saw D Hulme sliding it
>backwards off the track during practice.
FWIW - this is more likely to be October 1966, when Denny Hulme was
actually in the Repco-Brabham. Jim Clark was driving a Lotus-BRM, and he
won the GP - a very rare triumph of British engineering, both the other BRM
H16s conked out and they didn't win a lot else that season. Jack Brabham's
homebrew low-tech engine (SOHC cam heads on an Olds/Buick production block)
won him the Championship, an early victory for low-budget down-under
engineers versus the most unfeasibly complicated engines that Honda, the
Brits and the Italians could assemble, kind of the same spirit as Britten.
How do I know this? I found a 1966 Grand Prix yearbook in the local
charity shop.
Enough cars already.
David T.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 09:41:09 +1000
From: Ian Drysdale
Subject: MC-Chassis Climax crank
> I suspect the article we have seen referenced was wrong if it says they
> used oil pressure only to fit it up. The only way one can do that is with
> an external apparatus, IE a press.
Sorry - I should have been more precise - they used pressure half
way up the taper and a 'press'. Actually they set it up in a big lathe
and used the tail stock to assemble it. Bush engineering at it's best.
> I also thought
> it impolite of the FIM to go to the 3-liter formula while Coventry Climax
> was testing the 16 cylinder.
Downright rude I would have said.
Of interest to me was that CC flat 16 - 1500cc has the same cylinder
volume as my 750-V8 and it is fascinating that they use almost exactly
the same bore, stroke, big end and little end diameters. It was a 2 valve
head vs. 4 in mine and the main bearings were huge for some reason -
probably to accomadate oil galleries - otherwise very similar.
At the risk of boring fellow listers - they almost built it in a vee
configuration - choosing a 135 deg. cylinder angle.
Cheers IAN
- --
Ian Drysdale
DRYSDALE MOTORCYCLE CO.
Melbourne. Australia
http://werple.net.au/~iwd
Ph. + 613 9562 4260
Fax.+ 613 9546 8938
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1998 21:14:54
From: batwings@i-plus.net
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: Old Car engines
At 11:28 PM 7/28/98, you wrote:
>FWIW - this is more likely to be October 1966, when Denny Hulme was
>actually in the Repco-Brabham.
Yer right, of course, I think the driver was really Peter Arandahl Jack Brabham's
>homebrew low-tech engine (SOHC cam heads on an Olds/Buick production block)
>won him the Championship, an early victory for low-budget down-under
He's long been one of my heros for coming up with that thing. Who'd have
thought of it except for an NZ?
I have one of them in a Corvair ... no, the original, not a destroked SOHC.
Hoyt
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:08:09
From: uranus
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: Numbskull
Doh! I've done it again! LJK Setright did NOT argue that car wheels are
held on by friction between the wheel and the hub - he was saying that the
wheels were located in the rotational plane by a tight fit between the
holes in the wheels and the wheel bolts - which IS wrong. He'll sue me if
he reads this.
If I can't find the time to re-read and check my postings, perhaps I should
just read the list and keep quiet.
David T.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 07:20:07 -0400
From: Julian Bond
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: bean counters
In article <006901bdb733$f322c840$b794f7c7@terry.yknet.yk.ca>, Terry
Hayden writes
> And let's consider the recent Blackbird
>or R-1...sure they are not a breathtaking engineering break throughs but
>they both were designed with a primary purpose in mind that wasn't mostly
>bean counting...if that was the case, the makers would be concentrating
>mostly on new cruisers...that's where the largest market and profit margin
>is these days.
In one market, all be it a large one. In other markets the R1 is selling
by the container load.
- --
Julian Bond mailto:julian_bond@voidstar.com
CN250/Helix/FF info & mailing list http://www.shockwav.demon.co.uk
>8600 Bike Suppliers, Contacts & Addresses http://www.bikeweb.com
> Do Not Dilute <
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:28:37 -0700
From: Marty Maclean
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
GD wrote:
>
> What do you want to get for the dirt tracker?
> GD
At least what the parts are worth...
Don't get too excited. I haven't even started it in years.
> > Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:14:26 -0800
From: "Michael Moore"
Subject: MC-Chassis Another shirt design
I received this from Paul Kellner this morning:
"Re your T-shirt request, here's a concept for the front. The idea was
to have a combination of past, present and engineering elements, as
reps for your mailinglists. (couldn't figure out how to get a dirt
rider in the pic tho!) The rear could be the lettering and flags only,
without the graphics. "
I've added Paul's design to the others on the first graphics page on
the web site. Check it out - it is pretty nice. I'd guess it might
need some redoing to reduce the number of different colors in the
design to make it easier/less expensive to print, but that could be a
misconception on my part.
Cheers,
Michael
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #709
******************************
MC-Chassis-Dgst Wednesday, July 29 1998 Volume 01 : Number 710
1. "Tony Foale" Subj: MC-Chassis Re: A long brief comment,as requested.
2. "Tony Foale" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #709
3. "Patrick F. Trumbull" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re: A long brief comment,as requested.
4. "john.mead" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 Heat treating 4130
5. GD Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
6. camillieri@earthlink.net Subj: MC-Chassis Frames
7. "Jim Schneider" Subj: Re: MC-Chassis Another shirt design
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 02:18:44 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: MC-Chassis Re: A long brief comment,as requested.
I claim copyright to the following text and it's reproduction in magazines,
paper or electronic is forbidden without my express permission. 30 July
1998.
- -------------------------------------------------------------
I had previously been asked, on this list, to comment on the letter in the
July issue of Roadracing World by Vernon Whittaker. I've now had an
opportunity to read it and note that it makes reference to two previous
letters which I've not read, but there's enough in the July letter to get on
with anyway.
Firstly, the writer claims to be unimpressed with "pour on the derision and
baffle 'em with bullshit" techniques but seems not to be bashful in the
employment of such methods himself. Likening those of opposing views to the
flat earth brigade, lacking in common sense, ignoring logic and of being
misguided.
Initially Mr. Whittaker presents a psuedo mathmatical argument "to uncover
the fallacy of a gyro-does-it-all theory", this objective is OK. but I've
yet to find anybody that actually claims that "gyro-does-it-all". Rather
the opposite in fact, there are those that can see that gyro effects are an
important aspect of the total picture and then there seem to be those that
believe that "steering out from under" is the ONLY effect of importance.
I'm not quite sure from his letter just which camp the writer is in. He
quotes from his earlier letter "the front wheel just steers out from under
the machine--which then falls over." from this, one suspects that he is
unimpressed by any attempt to give credence to any help from precessional
effects.
However, other parts of the letter recognise precessional responses and in
fact he over-calculates their effect by a factor of 3 to 5 times towards the
end of the letter. (more on that below).
To start his calculations he quotes, from a reference text-book, the
standard steady state solution to the equations of motion relating to an
idealized precessing system. i.e.
T = I * w1 * w2
where
T is a torque at right angles to the spin axis,
I is the moment of inertia about the spin axis,
w1 is the angular velocity about the spin axis
w2 is the precessional angular velocity about the precessional axis which is
at right angles to both the spin axis and the torque axis.
(the greek letters "omega" are normally used for angular velocity but don't
always display correctly in everbody's email programme, so I use "w")
The problem is that the writer applies this equation to the question of
initiating a turn, which is far from the steady state case for which that
equation was developed, in addition the subsequent logic ignores far too
many other factors for it to have much validity.
I think it pointless to go through the analysis line by line so I shall just
focus on a few of the aspects poorly considered.
The writer uses the case of a lean-in to a final angle of 45 deg. which is
accomplished in 1 sec. This seems a reasonable value to start with, as 10
secs. is obviously too long and 1/10 sec. is equally obviously too short.
However, Mr. Whittaker then bases his calculations as if that roll rate were
constant throughout the 1 sec. and calculates a handlebar torque based on
that constant rate, as if the countersteering torque is maintained
throughout the whole of the lean-in phase.
Clearly at the start and at the end of the lean-in phase the roll rate will
be zero. The roll rate will of course build up to a maximum value somewhere
between the two extremes and then slow down as the bike approaches it's
final steady state cornering angle. Obviously the peak roll rate will have
to be greater than the average 45 deg. per sec.
The writer may well claim that the above comments further strengthen his
argument, but a little thought will indicate that the steering torque (as
calculated by Whittaker's application of the formula) will initially be
quite low and build up to a maximum about half way through the lean-in. No,
the fact is that the whole process is a very complicated dynamic situation
which simply cannot be analysed with any validity by the simple use of a
formula developed for a steady precessing system.
Whittaker appears to view precessional effects as a mechanism for the
magical reorientation of torque, this is not really a helpful way of
considering the matter. Precessional effects are simply a non-magical
result of the need for conservation of angular momentum. Unfortunately,
whilst many people have little problem visualizing linear momentum and
what's needed to change it, the same can not be said for angular momentum,
the effects of which tend to cause the majority a bit of brain ache.
Whilst this is hardly the right forum for a full analysis of the physics of
precession, a simple analogy with the linear case might be helpful.
Imagine a mass travelling in a straight line with some velocity. This then
has a momentum of M * V, to change that we must apply a force for a period
of time. If the applied force is in line with the direction of travel then
the velocity will simply be increased or decreased, but if the applied force
is at right angles to the direction of travel then the mass will be moved
off course, if the force is applied for the appropriate period then the mass
will end up travelling at right angles to it's original direction whilst
retaining the same magnitude. Thus applying a force at right angles to the
direction of travel redirects the momentum without reducing it's magnitude.
Let's apply this to the case of angular momentum, if we apply a torque about
an axis at right angles to the spin axis then we redirect the angular
momentum, now we can obviously resolve it's components into momentum about
the original spin axis and another at right angles. To look at it in terms
of a motorcycle, if we apply a steering torque then some of the angular
momentum of the wheel is redirected into roll momentum. This aspect, it
seems to me has been ignored in Mr. Whittaker's view of the nature of
precession.
OK, so just how should we calculate the response?
The answer is with a great deal of difficulty.
Expressed simply, we write down the differential equations of motion, taking
account of ALL relevant factors and solve. The difficulties come because
it's not quite so simple to exactly specify the characteristics of various
parameters, the system is a complex control system with many feed-back
paths, one of the most important of which is the rider, I don't think that I
need to explain just how many problems can be involved with expressing human
response in mathmatical terms. The only way of doing these calculations is,
not unexpectedly, by computer simulation. It just is not realistic to
believe that one can properly manually analyze this matter mathmatically
within the scope of a letter to a magazine.
Let's now have a brief look at the proposition that the lean-in is simply a
question of steering out from under and letting gravity do it's work.
When the lean-in phase is complete and we are cornering in a steady balanced
state, how come gravity doesn't continue to make the bike fall in? We all
know the answer, the gravity moment is balanced by the cornering force
moment, that's why we need to lean in the first place, afterall. So, don't
these moments balance out during the lean-in phase as well?
The answer is that of course some balancing goes on, but we are dealing with
a dynamic situation and exact balance is not required at all stages. If the
lean angle starts to built up quicker than the build up of cornering force
then there will be residue gravity moment to assist further lean-in, however
if cornering force builds up quicker than lean angle then the lean-in will
be slowed. For the final part of the lean-in phase we obviously need some
mechanism to slow down the lean-in or else roll momentum would simply cause
us to overshoot our required lean angle, probably with painful results.
So it's obvious that taking gravity into account is not quite so simple
either.
Don't forget the question that I've asked on this list twice before, that
is: if gravity is so important to lean-in, how do we exit a turn when on the
limit of adhesion? Wouldn't gravity hold us down? Simple "steering out from
under", or in this case: "steering back under" just does not explain this.
In his penultimate paragraph the writer mentions a secondary gyro effect
which modifies the required steady state lean angle. Surprisingly he
over-states the effect of this secondary action whilst the previous part of
the letter plays down the effects of the primary action.
Also strangely, he does not display his arithmetic, choosing only to quote
the results, I find this strange because this can easily be calculated from
the standard precession equation as presented near the beginning of his
letter.
This effect is the roll torque reaction due to the precession velocity of
the wheels about the curve centre, as the maths are simple I'll lay it out
here.
Let's start with the value for wheel moment of inertia as used by Whittaker
of 0.5 slug-feet**2 (this is quite a reasonable figure) or 1.0 slug-feet**2
for the two wheels, let's further assume that we are travelling at 100'/sec.
(68 mph.) and cornering at 32.2 ft/sec**2 ( 1g ).
>From this we can calculate from the standard formula (a=v**2/r) that the
turn radius will be r=v**2/a or 100*100/32.2=310ft.
Thus angular velocity v/r=100/310=0.322rads/sec. This is the precessional
angular velocity.
We also calculate the wheel angular velocity of a 1ft radius wheel
v/r=100/1=100rads/sec.
(Actually, it doesn't matter what velocity we choose, for a given lateral
acceleration the velocity terms cancel out in the final analysis.)
Now, we plug these values into the standard precessional equation T=I*w1*w2
and get 1*100*0.322=32.2lb.ft, this torque acts to make the bike stand up a
bit and so must be compensated for by leaning over a bit more. Without
explanation Whittaker states this as being about 4deg. for a 500lb. bike and
7deg. for a 250lb. racer (presumablely these figures are sans rider) for our
estimate let's tread the middle ground and choose a 350lb. bike with 150lb.
rider, making an all up weight of 500lbs. Let's also assume that the all up
CoG height (Hcog) is 2ft. Let's call the lean angle "theta".
Forgetting, for the time being, this effect we can calculate that the roll
over moment (Mc) due to cornering force (Fc) is Mc=Fc*Hcog*cos(theta)
Likewise the balancing gravitational moment (Mg) due to weight (W) is
Mg=W*Hcog*sin(theta). Now for our case of 1g cornering force, it's clear
that Fc=W.
Substituting our values of 500lbs. and 2' we get
Mc=500*2*cos(theta)=1000*cos(theta) and
Mg=500*2*sin(theta)=1000*sin(theta)
without the precessional moment sin(theta)-cos(theta)=0 or theta=45deg. but
the precessional moment adds to the cornering force moment so the above two
equations become
Mc=1000*cos(theta) + 32.2 and
Mg=1000*sin(theta)
thus sin(theta)-cos(theta)=32.2/1000=0.0322 now a quick consultation with a
book of trig tables will indicate that theta comes out at just over 46deg.
or just over 1deg. of extra lean, this is a lot less than the 4 to 7deg.
calculated by Whittaker.
I guessed at a CoG height of 2ft. if it is actually higher then the
modification to the lean angle will be less, even if we use an unlikely
overall height of 1ft. we still get an increased lean angle considerably
less than that presented in the letter.
For those that dislike the "slugs-ft-secs" system of units, I only used them
to be consistant with the letter under consideration, hence avoiding
needless confusion.
Engine rotation also has an effect on this extra lean angle, but again the
effect is small. A forward rotating engine increases the needed angle and of
course the opposite rotation has the reverse effect. Bikes with north-south
cranks experience a small pitch change due to this effect. Not a serious nor
even noticable effect on bikes but powerful single-engined propellor-driven
fighter planes reacted with nose up or down movements during steep turns,
the direction of pitch depends on direction of the turn and rotation of the
engine.
Mr. Whittaker starts his ultimate paragraph with the statement that
"Eliminating myths allows observations", I'd had thought it better to
approach the problem from the opposite aspect, i.e. "Observations might
eliminate myths" with this in mind it's hard to ignore the observation that
motoX riders can easily lean their machines whilst high in the air with no
tyre contact to steer out from under.
Phew! I'm off to bed after all that.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 02:41:06 +0200
From: "Tony Foale"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #709
David said:
<<
. Jack Brabham's
homebrew low-tech engine (SOHC cam heads on an Olds/Buick production block)
won him the Championship, an early victory for low-budget down-under
engineers versus the most unfeasibly complicated engines that Honda, the
Brits and the Italians could assemble, kind of the same spirit as Britten.
How do I know this?
>>
As Phil Irving was initially the main engineer, the above is quite relavent
to this list. Basically this was a case of the right engine for the times.
It was there at the time of the change to the 3 litre formula, they were
able to run with a simple engine based on a standard block, which finished
races, when the competition were battling with completely new designs.
Later they took on a new whizz kid engineer from England (whose name
escapes me) who was at odds with Irving on many design features, it was not
so successful after that.
How do I know this? Why, because Irving told me, sour grapes maybe?? hell
I don't know, but it was enough to put off this newly graduated engineer
from joining the Repco team. Probably not the best career choice that I
made.
Tony Foale
España ( Spain )
http://www.ctv.es/USERS/softtech/motos
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 18:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Patrick F. Trumbull"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re: A long brief comment,as requested.
In reading Tony's reply to Mr Whittaker, I was reminded of a
question I kept asking myself this weekend as I came down the Sierra. Why
do bikes stand up when the front brake is applied while cornering and why
do some bikes do it so much more than others?
patrick trumbull
trouble@calweb.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 10:37:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: "john.mead"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 Heat treating 4130
- ----------
> John Mead wrote:
>
> > Its crude but I use 3/4 inch and 1 inch .065 4130 for everything. I also
> have
> > the frames heat treated by a local heat treater after welding.
> >
> >
> Hello John
>
> What process does your heat treater use, temperatures, times and process
> etc. Is there any problem with distortion? Does he have an oven large
> enough to fit a whole frame in? I would be very interested to know the
> results of this process and what filler rod you use if you are heat
> treating.
The company that does my heat treating of 4130 is Hauni. They are
a german company and do a vacuum heat treating among other things. I
like the vacuum heat treating because the pieces come out looking like they
have been nickel plated. Very clean. One of their "ovens" is large enough
to hold a semi-trailer load of work so my stuff can get stuck in without any
problems. I do not know what temperature they use. I just tell them what
alloy it is and let them do the rest.
I use Richmond Heat Treating for aluminum. They do a liquid type heat
treating that is required for 6061-T6xx aluminum.
Both companies are located in Richmond, Virginia.
Have you ever had any tests for hardness at the weld area and
> HAZ. Most people I know don't bother with heat treating 4130 some just use
> a little pre-heat and slow cooling with a low carbon steel filler rod. I
> like the idea of heat treating to get the whole thing back to original
> tensile strength and hardness, but have never heard of anyone actually
> doing it properly with 4130 ie hardening and tempering and choice of filler
> rod. How's it done John?
I do not do my own welding. Here in the NASCAR part of the country there
are many shops that build racing frame components using 4130 and I give
my stuff to them since they know what works.
John Mead
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 19:56:16 -0700
From: GD
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Re:Brakes
If you decide to get ride of it keep me in mind. I don't
care if it runs if the price is right.
GD
Marty Maclean wrote:
> GD wrote:
> >
> > What do you want to get for the dirt tracker?
> > GD
>
> At least what the parts are worth...
>
> Don't get too excited. I haven't even started it in years.
>
> > > Marty
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:21:07 -0400
From: camillieri@earthlink.net
Subject: MC-Chassis Frames
I would think the benefit of a 4130 heat treated frame is outweighed
by the cost. It would be no stiffer than a mild steel frame and only
slightly more crash resistant. Would the welding be done with low
carbon or brazing rod? If so the welds would be the weak point.
Frank Camillieri
Chester, NH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:45:44 -0600
From: "Jim Schneider"
Subject: Re: MC-Chassis Another shirt design
Outstanding graphics, Have Paul do a dirt bike just for the back. This is a
really nice set-up.
Jim
Swiss
- -----Original Message-----
>I received this from Paul Kellner this morning:
>
>"Re your T-shirt request, here's a concept for the front. The idea was
>to have a combination of past, present and engineering elements, as
>reps for your mailinglists. (couldn't figure out how to get a dirt
>rider in the pic tho!) The rear could be the lettering and flags only,
>without the graphics. "
>
>I've added Paul's design to the others on the first graphics page on
>the web site. Check it out - it is pretty nice. I'd guess it might
>need some redoing to reduce the number of different colors in the
>design to make it easier/less expensive to print, but that could be a
>misconception on my part.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
>http://www.eurospares.com
>AFM/AHRMA #364
------------------------------
End of MC-Chassis-Dgst V1 #710
******************************